No offense, but....Zzzzz........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Glendinning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Intellectual Gauntlet
Ron, Marsha, (and Gav, Mati and DMB)
Ron as you say the crux is using language with "MoQ understanding" and
the problem we have communicating that shared understanding with the
langauge we actually use.
To join up the dots ... as Gav says, the Type 2 devil, the Giant
pervades our discourse, because we use shared language - how could we
do other ? But that shared language contains all the values and
misplaced concreteness that those social patterns - agreed meanings,
definitions and usages - conserve in the language.
I think Mati has it when he talks not about the fact that we use
language (full of social values) as we must, but "how" we use it - to
what intents and purposes. At the risk of winding DMB up further, but
I'm serious, I think the idea of "rigorous" argument is part of the
Giant - one reason I personally prefer conceptual slipping - lateral
thinking of sorts - and joining up dots not otherwise connected in
logical, causal ways. Traditional "rigour" grasps for those concrete
meanings.
I don't believe we have solved this issue, but I'm pretty sure we've
identified what it is. Redefining argumentation - how we make MoQish
use of language, to MoQish ends and purposes - using a language we
share with the Giant.
Ian
On 7/21/08, Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian to Marsha,
I agree / agreed with what you say by the way - just very hard to know
how to translate that into actions on an e-mail discussion group, or
actions in academic discourse, or actions in "conventional" western
life. I try and I do, but it is still nevertheless hard to express in
intelligible terms.
In fact your summary here " .... Many of the problems this list is
having "defining things" would melt away.The subject/object pov stays
intact but can be seen as a workable method in a conventional world
not reality itself." says to me that you and DMB are in fact agreeing.
It is understandable that confusion is caused by the fact that - to
paraphrase - we need definitions in order to discuss the real world,
even if in the real world those definitions are insignificant (or much
less significant, anyway).
"Misplaced concreteness" this is often called. We talk in concrete
terms of things that are much more .... err, nebulous, ephemeal,
ineffable ... and mistake them for being more concrete and objective
than they really are.
Ron:
That is the whole problem Ian. Right there. The cultural reflex is to
grasp for concrete meaning. But, concrete entities do not exist.
with MoQ understanding comes description without this fallacy.
we understand our words for what they are, descriptors of experience not
symbols as things.
this gives language more power to describe scientific phenomena without
the
stigma of concrete entities. Atoms then may be described to behave as if
they prefer their bonds. Not that they are conceptualized as autonomous
rational entities but rather a description of their observed behavior.
when we have the understanding, the language takes care of itself.
This goes for any of the MoQ terms including better-ness and Quality.
Better-ness is a dynamic term to describe an experience of making
choices based on intellectual, social, biological and inorganic "truths"
we build through experience.
The same may be said of "value" and "Quality".
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
